R. M. KHURSHID, J.- This order will dispose of the main writ petition as well as miscellaneous applications and Criminal Original cited in the caption.
2. The |>practitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 on the ground that he was granted permission to remove the mud from Pattoke Sugar Mills at the rate of Rs.64/- per ton on account of deal between the petitioner and the Mills vide Annexure-A. The petitioner allegedly deposited Rs. 1,20,(KK)/- as CDR and security vide annexurc-B in pursuance of the aforesaid deal. As a consequence the petitioner was permitted to lift the mud from the premises of the Mills. The petitioner went to the premises at about 3.00 PM on 1.11.1995 alongwith tractors Trollies in order to collect the mud but was confronted by some persons including Baha Raj Din. He was. Not allowed to remove the mud and was threatened with dire consequences. He accordingly approached respondent No.5 i.e. SHO. Police Station. Pattoke by making an application on 4. Ll.l'>95 for action against these persons but in vain. It was, therefore, prayed that respondents Nos. 3 & 4 1u- directed to honour the aforesaid deal by permitting the petitioner to remove the mud and further SHO, PS, Pattoke be directed to proceed against offenders in accordance with law.
3. Notice was issued to the respondents in the writ petition which was contested by respondents Nos. 3&4 who contended that the petition was incompetent as the petitioner did not possess any legal or vested right so as to be enforced through the Constitutional petition, In this context, it was alleged that there was a commercial deal between the petitioner and Paltoke Sugar Mills arisen out of an alleged contract, which was subsequently revoked and as such a remedy was available to the petitioner in the shape of damages under the ordinary civil Courts jurisdiction. The petitioner instead of approaching the right forum has unnecessarily invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction although the Federal or Provincial (Government functionaries were never party to any such contract nor they had made any order, the violation of which could attract the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution, In this context it was submitted that the contract was apparently between a private business concern and the petitioner, and remedy for its breach could be availed under the plenary jurisdiction of civil Court.
4. Lastly it was submitted that there was no contract except that a work order was issued to the petitioner, which was cancelled on 1.11.1995 as a more competitive price was offered to the Mills by another party. The Principle of locus Poenitentiae was also invoked on the ground that order in favour of the subsequent bidder had become effective and therefore, the petitioner had no right to bring this petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments relied on 1996 CLC 182 (Karachi) and 1993 MLD Kill (Karachi). In reply the learned counsel for respondents relied on 1994 CLC 848 (Lahore) and 1994 SCM R 958.
6. Civil Miscellaneous Application No.1/96 was moved in the writ petition by Siraj Din applicant on the ground that he be impleaded as a party to the writ petition because he was the contractor to lift the mud from the Mills on account of a contract between the parlies. He also applied through Civil Miscellaneous Application No.2/96 for the dismissal of the writ petition and vacation of. The stay order, as he was the person to lift the mud under the contract. The aforesaid applications were opposed by the writ petitioner on the ground that subsequent contract was not valid in the eye of law and that the contract in favour of the petitioner still existed and could not be legally revoked.
7. Criminal Original No. 53-W/96 in the writ petition was moved by the writ petitioner against the General Manager/Personnel Manager of the Sugar Mills Pattoke District Kasur and SHO, Police Station, Pattoke on the ground that they violated the order issued by this Court on 19.11.1996 whereby they were directed to proceed strictly in accordance with law. The aforesaid application was also opposed on the ground that violation of The order passed by this Court was not made by the aforesaid respondents and that they acted in accordance with law. It was prayed that order dated 21.1.1996 restraining the selling of mud be vacated.
8. After hearing the parties and going through the record, it becomes clear that the Sugar Mills Pattoke is not a department of the Federal or the Provincial Government nor it is corporate body acting under any Statute or performing functions in connection with the affairs of any of the Governments mentioned above. It is a private Commercial Enterprise which in its to individual capacity has a right to enter into a contract or to revoke the same in the interest of business though subject to law of the land.
9. The petitioner has relied upon the letter dated 31.10.1995 issued by the Pattoke Sugar Mills Limited i.e. Annexure 'A'. Its perusal shows that the management of the Mills had accepted the rate of Rs.64/- per ton and the contract for sale of mud for 1995-% was awarded to the petitioner with the direction that he shall deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- in the Mills account. The petitioner allegedly deposited the said amount vide annexure 'B\ However, the aforesaid annexure does not reveal any regular receipt issued by any Bank or Mills showing that the said amount has been deposited. Any how, the Mills had taken the plea that the aforesaid contract was cancelled to which they termed as work order instead of contract. A new contract was given to one Siraj Din ata higher rate of Rs.65/- per ton vide letter dated 1.11.1996, i.e. Annexure A./l. It was directed in the aforesaid letter that the new contractor shall deposit Rs.2,00,(100/- in the Mills account and start execution of the assignment.
The regular contract Annexure A/2 was placed on the record to show that the new contract has been entered between the aforesaid parties, and that the requisite amount was paid to the Pattoke Sugar Mills Limited, vide Annexure A/3 and Annexure A/4.
9. The above facts make it clear that there was some sort of contract between the petitioner and Pattoke Sugar Mills, which was subsequently cancelled and a fresh contract was entered with Siraj Din, who has now applied to become a party to this writ petition. The petitioner has not been able to place on record any other material except the letter issued by the Mills whereby he was awarded the contract to lift the mud at the rate of Rs.64/- per ton. The efficacious and appropriate remedy is therefore, available to the petitioner in a Court of ordinary civil jurisdiction if the aforesaid contract is breached or violated. Since no Govemment department is involved in the transaction therefore, it would not be enforceable through the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition, is therefore without merit and the same is dismissed. The injunction restraining the selling of mud is accordingly recalled. The petition to thd1 effect is therefore, dismissed.
10, Now (.Would like to discuss the petition regarding*the contempt of Court moved by the petitioner. In the order dated 19.11.1995 it was made clear that respondents may continue to proceed but strictly in accordable with law. The SHO i.e. Respondent No.5 has submitted his comments that a case under section 506 PPC has already been registered at the report of the petitioner on 25.11.1995 vide FIR No. 383/95 for an occurrence which took place on 1.11.1995 and that the investigation is in progress. It therefore, follows that the aforesaid respondent has taken action in accordance with law and as such there has been no violation of order of this Court. There is no ground to proceed further against him.
Notice issued to him is therefore, recalled.
11. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 contended that they proceeded in accordance with law as the "contract in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and a fresh contract was granted to another party and therefore, the latter had a legal right to lift the mud. However, on receipt of order dated 21.1.1996 the further selling of mud was stayed and as such there was no violation to attract the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1976, read with Article 204 of the Constitution. In such a situation, it was submitted that respondents had stopped the selling of mud after receiving the Stay Order therefore, there was no violation of any order of this Court.
11. I have considered the above contentions and find that no exception can be taken to the aforesaid submissions made by the respondents in writing and as such they are not liable to contempt of Court. The notice issued to them is also recalled. The Criminal Original is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.